"Friendly dig", like "friendly fire", is a contradiciton of terms. 

I know a comic book guy who's 36, little older than myself, who reviles Frank Miller for what he "did" to Batman. Miller's the poster boy for the 30-plus fan who's watched Batman turn into a psychotic. And it's hogwash to lay it at Miller's feet.

Miller didn't "do" anything to Batman. Except come up with a brilliant postulated "alternate" future story in DKR and then referencing that redemption in BATMAN YEAR ONE by detailing Wayne's obsession and defining once and for all Jim Gordon as integral to Wayne's "humanity" as Batman.

But Miller's work on the two (and I don't know how BATMAN YO fits into continuity if at all anymore), was NOT designed as bookends to the Batman we know. DKR was more or less the first unofficial "Elseworlds" tale (actually a DC convention for decades prior), while BYO was post-CRISIS rebooting (I think). What was done immediately after Miller didn't reek of the "grim and gritty". Tonally Batman might have changed somewhat, his adventures were certainly more "life and death", but really THE KILLING JOKE and DEATH IN THE FAMILY may have done more harm than DKR. The gradual darkening of the Batman's world became pure obsidian in five to ten years, resulting more from Tim Burton's gloomy rubberized dildo Batman movie than anything Miller did. Even if Burton was influenced by DKR, the guy could have cared less about Miller, Batman, Adam West, or Adam West's jock cup. He was making "his" version of Batman. A poor one at that.

So when I'm pointing this out to the friend, the guy still jabs the finger at Miller. Miller took away "his" Batman, the Aparo Batman, the Batman with the yellow oval who had cool stuff on his utility belt.

And sure, I love the yellow oval as well. I love Aparo. But Miller didn't create ninja Batman, or the unbeatable Batman of fanboy wank. I don't know about now, but at that time Miller's Batman was a psychological noir stylization of what already existed. The creators who came along later continued upping the ante, in comics, as comics shifted because of factors outside of Miller's thematic desires. Meanwhile, Timm and Dini seemed to "get" what Miller had postulated, while incorporating the Burton fetish style.

Go back to DKR and it's clear Miller was writing Batman, not "Miller's Batman". Even in DKR, the extremes of the evil, the psychotic violence, the political corruption around Batman IN THE FUTURE (like, not now, and one not even in continuity) force his hand toward extremes himself. This is realized in the "mud fight" issue of DKR...first fight with the brute, Batman fights him as he would have in "our" time, as he would when young, and is nearly ripped to pieces...second fight, he realizes it's a different time, and does what he WOULD NOT HAVE DONE when young, in "our" time. He brutalizes his opponent because it's the only way.

By the time Batman kills the Joker, Miller is setting up the idea that there's no turning back, that it's too late for THIS Batman in MILLER's story, not that that moment was a signal for the comics world to become "dark". Miller was telling a good story, not fundamentally changing the character of Batman in every comic to come after DKR.

Well, Batman breaks his neck, while being stabbed nearly to death. For all intents and purpose, Batman killed the Joker. The Joker merely finishes the job of severing his spinal cord because he believes Batman is going to die with him anyway. I thought the Joker didn't want to live without Batman, but he was probably going to die anyway.

I just realized I don't own DKR anymore. I need to get a copy again.